Health Alert

Hazardous asbestos fibers at the WTC exposed more than 110,000 people to the dangerous material; this includes 80,000 tower workers, 30,000 area residents and nearly 4,000 first responders. Asbestos exposure is directly linked to mesothelioma cancer and other asbestos-related diseases.

User login

Decision On Petition's Legality Expected By End Of Week

Supreme Court Justice Edward Lehner has begun consideration of NYC CAN’s motion to reject Referee’s Louis Crespo’s recommendation that the NYC CAN 9/11 petition not be submitted to the voters on November 3. The petition would ask whether or not there should be an independent New York City investigation into 9/11.

Responding to a motion brought by NYC CAN attorney Dennis McMahon, a hearing was held Tuesday September 29 at the New York State Supreme Court, and concluded with the understanding that the Court will likely render a decision on the petition’s legality by Friday, October 2.

The City’s previously assumed deadline of September 30—spurred by the printing deadline for military absentee ballots—was brushed away by Judge Lehner as he suggested the printing of absentee ballots would likely not be ordered on Wednesday, September 30, since runoff elections were being held while the Court was in session. Even if the ballots were ordered on Wednesday, Lehner indicated, this should not prevent the referendum from being put before the vast majority of the electorate who would be voting in New York City.

Judge Lehner’s postponement of the supposed deadline came after McMahon had requested that the Judge carefully consider both sides’ arguments, rather than render a rush decision and fail to adequately contemplate NYC CAN’s legal arguments, as the Referee had done.

Initially there was a question as to whether oral arguments would go forward as a clerical mishap resulted in the Judge not being presented with the papers on time. As a result of the snafu, the procedure for the Court to hear arguments was inverted, whereby oral arguments were heard first and served to orient the Judge.

Over the next few days the Judge will go through both sides’ legal memos, as well as the applicable statutes and case law.

Surprisingly, the file forwarded from the Referee to the Judge did not contain NYC CAN’s legal memo, which McMahon told the Court seemed apropos, since the referee had barely considered the Petitioners’ memorandum of law.

The Judge proceeded to invite discourse on why an investigation was needed. When McMahon raised as an example the 9/11 Commission’s omission of the collapse of Building 7 from its final report, the Judge replied in puzzlement, “Building what?”

When asked by the Judge whether or not there has been an investigation into 9/11 by New York City authorities, Steve Kitzinger, the City’s lawyer, replied, “It’s irrelevant”, to which the packed courtroom was loudly disdainful, some openly laughing in disbelief. At which point Mr. Kitzinger prevailed upon Judge Lehner to quiet the crowd, which the Judge did.

With order restored, the Judge again asked Kitzinger if the City had done anything to investigate 9/11. Kitzinger flatly responded, “No.”

“The City never did anything?” retorted the Judge in disbelief. Nothing, Kitzinger admitted.

As part of his unrelenting attack on the NYC CAN petition, Kitzinger repeatedly alluded to the proposed commission’s intention to investigate national security matters beyond its jurisdiction such as “intelligence failures”. A simple reading of the petition shows such assertions to be completely unfounded.

Later, Judge Lehner seemed unimpressed by Kitzinger’s argument pertaining to the limited jurisdiction of New York City to investigate 9/11, on the grounds of inherent limits to a municipality’s subpoena power. “You can investigate anything, can’t you?” the Judge asked rhetorically. “Because somebody may have jurisdiction over certain witnesses doesn’t mean you can’t have a commission.”

On the complicated question of the commission being a privately funded entity but still having subpoena power granted under the auspices of New York City government, the Judge made comments that gave the Petitioners hope for a favorable ruling. “You want a law that says this private commission shall have the right to subpoena people?” To which McMahon assented. Offering similar examples, the Judge noted, “A private lawyer can issue subpoenas… a lawyer issues [subpoenas] in connection with an action [during] litigation in court.”

After the hearing, the consensus among NYC CAN members and supporters in attendance was that Judge Lehner is intrigued by the proposed referendum, and that he will give both sides’ arguments due consideration.

Near the end of the hearing, McMahon stated emphatically, “The citizens are desperate. We want to find out what really happened on 9/11.”
__________________________________________

I get this same puzzlement from many people, but I'm floored that an educated New Yorker, a legal mind, could have no knowledge of the Building 7 mystery. No wonder we're having such an uphill battle with everyday folks.

Overall it looks good, but why on earth would ANYONE reference "Rense" as a source for a comment made by an official? You'd have to have no idea what is on Rense to ever reference them, or not care, which is sad given how almost all of the rest of it is very careful to avoid nonsense references or claims. The exact same comment is available in Newsweek.

And to include the phrase "AA77 allegedly hit the Pentagon" pretty much tanks credibility . . . .

Wow, it even cites George Nelson! Nelson questions the involvement of all 4 planes . . .

"According to Colonel George Nelson, Former U.S. Air Force Aircraft Investigator, “In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident…The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view.”"

Sloppy, sloppy, sloppy stuff.

Nelson has been all over the missile/pod forums arguing that real planes weren't used. Who ever wrote this memo should never have cited him.

Granted, the judge won't understand or make the connection in just these few days, most likely, but if this goes through, this will be a permanent and important document, and it makes the rest of us look idiotic when that kind of stuff is in there.

Also referenced in there, Physics911.net hosts essays by a number of people claiming real planes never hit the WTC and that an A3 Skywarrior was used at the Pentagon, among other nonsense. We are so past that . . . it's really sad that people are linking to that in such an important document. You can go read essays by Morgan Reynolds there, about how cartoons hit the WTC -- let's pass that on to the judge!

Unfortunately I've noticed that a number of the new groups that have formed -- journalists for 9/11 and others -- all link to physics911.net -- why?? Why on earth would anyone link to a site with no-planes-at-the-WTC essays by Reynolds and other disruptors?

They should have only linked to the Journal, not to "no planes" websites.

I'd like to know what the background is on this Louis Crespo, the "Referee" is his title. What is his agenda? His connections?

I came across an article with a Louis Crespo having been involved in heroin dealing, maybe not the same guy, otherwise, how'd he get a place in the NYC court system? I'll see if I can find the link. Maybe it was a relative of his.

We'll most likely have a forum to evaluate which leads should be followed, which questions should be asked, who should be askes and so on. A democratic one- with our best researchers and family members and first responders.

That's not the point. There are many many things the Feds are hiding about many many incidents and investigations. The point is that you don't have a person who claims utter nonsense be the source for any of the questions or concerns being put forth. This is how the only JFK investigation was completely undermined.

JFK Truth Movement -- lessons
Bogus Evidence sabotaged the only trial of a conspirator in the coup against President Kennedy

A disinformation campaign was waged to discredit the citizen investigations into the coup against President Kennedy -- people popped up claiming inside knowledge who were used to misdirect the investigators. The most memorable occurrence was during Jim Garrison's prosecution of Clay Shaw, a CIA agent who participated in the plot against Kennedy. This episode was nicely dramatized in Oliver Stone's film JFK. Garrison's legal team had found a witness who claimed to have participated in meetings with Shaw, Lee Harvey Oswald and others, but on the stand, the man's claims of participation were totally shredded by his claims that he had fingerprinted his daughter before and after she went to college to prove that she was the same person (and therefore, this obviously insane testimony was used to discredit the genuine evidence that Garrison had used to prosecute Shaw). Shaw was found innocent by the jury (even though subsequent research and official admissions revealed he was CIA), although that jury did admit that there had been a conspiracy to kill JFK, they merely didn't believe that Shaw was a participant.http://www.oilempire.us/jfktruth.html

Here's what Nelson says elsewhere --

"Underneath the fuselage, installed across the starboard aircraft wing root, is a visible, large piece of equipment that most viewers have called a “Pod”. Many have speculated what purpose the “Pod” might have served on a passenger carrying, scheduled airliner, but such speculation is pointless at the present time. . . . This leads to a more disturbing speculation, that the airplane seen hitting the south tower was not UAL flight 175, but a plane that had been substituted for flight 175."http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/ArticlesNelson13March2006.html

This is a problem we see over and over and over where just because someone has credentials, we think the nonsense they are saying at times is okay . . . recall, Morgan Reynolds.

"there are no big Boeing crashes . . . at all four events . . . what you will see is a fake, cartoon display . . ."
Dr. Reynolds exposes 9/11 TV fakery on FoxNews; 9.10.06www.youtube.com/watch?v=reQZT9Hzvt8

is correct, as I have to admit by knowing William Peppers work, you cited Michael Rupperts oilempire, for which you can basicially say the same.

He's an inside guy, from the LAPD, and of course all the dark alliance stuff ist spot on, and even the oil may had a role in 9/11, but what does he say now about 9/11 truth? Get over it? You know that he's highly controversial, even here at 9/11 blogger. To cited oilempire may play the same role as you suggested.

So how sto start using sources that never can be discredited in any way? Even if you a careful enough, there will always be plenty of room for such methods. We have to defend us as best as possible, we have to rely on the experience on the MLK trial and Dr. Pepper, Zwicker and so on, who were experts on these topics, but we surely can not search every researcher ever made claims only to shoot ourselves in our feet if the raised point is indeed valid.

I've already said I'm agnostic, and I don't want the best effort we have today, the NYCCAN initiative, thread hijacked for just another round of silly fighting about who said what when.

Very Special Guest Attorney Dennis MacMahon representing NYCCAN.org. In his first media appearance on the issue, Dennis discusses the legal aspects of the petition by NYCCAN.org to amend the NYC Charter to form an independent local commission with subpoena power to re-investigate 9/11. This archive is definitely 5 stars.

I read the NYCCAN filing and it seems really well-reasoned (other than the really, really bad sources Vic pointed out- who in the HELL decided those should be in there- Jon?). However, i didn't check the myriad legal sources cited, and i'm not an attorney.

I would also really like to see a copy of the clerk's full filing, detailing the reasoning behind their 5 objections, and the sources they cite- Ted and Kyle have not responded to my email request for a copy of it.

In any case, it's up to the judge now, and from the quotes in the post, he seems fair and open-minded:

"You can investigate anything, can’t you?” the Judge asked rhetorically. “Because somebody may have jurisdiction over certain witnesses doesn’t mean you can’t have a commission.”

"You want a law that says this private commission shall have the right to subpoena people?” To which McMahon assented. Offering similar examples, the Judge noted, “A private lawyer can issue subpoenas… a lawyer issues [subpoenas] in connection with an action [during] litigation in court.”

This is a historic undertaking, and if it succeeds it will set some really good precedent for citizen initiatives and oversight- i hope it does.

If it doesn't succeed, it won't be due to lack of valid signatures- it will be due to the flaws in this petition's language (drafted by Les Jamieson, Carl Person and William Pepper), but the lessons learned from this initiative will enable serious activists to craft a rock solid petition, prevent/eliminate the involvement of unhelpful people and gather the required number of signatures in less time- perhaps by simply contacting the people who signed this one.

>>I would also really like to see a copy of the clerk's full filing, detailing the reasoning behind their 5 objections, and the sources they cite- Ted and Kyle have not responded to my email request for a copy of it.

Yes, that's an interesting aspect of all this -- it's a petition which affects the work of 9/11 activists and researchers all over the world and yet we only read or see bits that are meted out by about 2 or 3 people total. There is not transparency.

I can see the need for there not to be transparency, but for example, my own email to the primary organizer asking about Edgar Mitchell was ignored.

One question I have is the private-public funding issue. Would this set a precedent, then, if it is passed? If so, does that not set a potentially very bad precedent for future investigations by those who simply have access to a great deal of money, and so can game the system? I understand the rationale for wanting it, just that one has to consider it if they are creating a potential frankenstein.

I'm not a lawyer either, so I don't know. I just know that one has be careful if something like a precedent-setting method for investigations funding is riding on a political initiative. What are the cons, as well as the pros?

The idea in the original petition, drafted by lawyer Carl Person, was to include within the same referendum a provision creating a new office of City Attorney General. By prosecuting corporate violators of e.g., labor, antitrust, enviromental laws, and thereby winning financial settlements in the city's favor (as Eliot Spitzer had notably been able to do for NY State when he was the state Attorney General), this new office would take in funds to be put not only to carrying out the independent 9/11 investigation stipulated in that same petition, but for other un- or underfunded programs and initiatives as well. The petition included a further provision that would submit to the voters, within a few years, the question of whether or not to continue this new City Attorney General's office.

The language of the petition also provided that the person who would initially hold that office upon its creation was...Carl Person (you wouldn't want to go to the trouble of creating an office and wind up seeing someone who was unsympathetic to a 9/11 investigation being appointed to fill it).

These provisions had the support of the steering committee of what was then still calling itself New York 9/11 Truth; but then, towards the end of that year (this was back in 2007), Les Jamieson accepted changes which removed the City Attorney General provisions. The understanding conveyed to those steering committee members who were concerned about the changes was that they had been made at the behest of William Pepper.

The City Attorney General idea was an attempt to surmount the dilemma posed by, on the one hand, the kind of problem Victronix cites--of being too dependent on a few wealthy financial backers (how might they exert their leverage?); and on the other hand, the probable legal case that the city goverment would have for refusing to transfer public funds away from some budgetary items to finance another new one--even if that new item had just been ratified by the city's voters.

Just an aside about that image. Tho I do have a blind eye for the naive ignorance of those who used/created it (the one-sheet, not the actual light show), I find that image to be nothing but the elite visually branding our sovereign asses thanks to Davey Rockefeller's many tentacle orgs, Municipal Art Society. It's a typical message from the baphomet crew to all those "in the game" that they mean business. And they own the game!